Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Bush angers abortion crowd, again
The Bush administration is working on a proposal before the president leaves office to prevent recipients of federal money from discriminating against health care workers who refuse on moral grounds to perform abortion or sterilization procedures.
The Department of Health and Human Services will issue the rule in the coming days. President-elect Barack Obama plans to undo the rule, but that will require several months.
Obama has said the proposal will raise new hurdles to women seeking reproductive health services, like abortion and some contraceptives. Michael Leavitt, the health and human services secretary, said that was not the purpose.
Others had different objections:
The Ohio Health Department said the rule “could force family planning providers to hire employees who may refuse to do their jobs” – a concern echoed by Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Under the Civil Rights Act, an employer must make reasonable accommodations for an employee’s religious practices, unless the employer can show that doing so would cause ‘undue hardship on the conduct of its business.’
back to top79 Comments to “Bush angers abortion crowd, again”
Nice headline. “Abortion Crowd”.
Report comment to moderator
If this was such a good idea, why has Bush waited 8 years to enact it?
Report comment to moderator
Hmm…Bush could have done this 8 years ago. But he waits until a month before he leaves office, KNOWING that it will be undone immediately? And you guys still think he’s on your side? And that he’s got guts?
Somebody’s chuckling all the way back from two electoral college visits.
Report comment to moderator
Can anybody spell S-U-C-K-E-R-S?
Report comment to moderator
“Under the Civil Rights Act, an employer must make reasonable accommodations for an employee’s religious practices, unless the employer can show that doing so would cause ‘undue hardship on the conduct of its business.”
Huh. Well if “Family Planning” is all they’re doing, then it wouldn’t be an issue would it? As it is, “Family Planning” seems to be a euphemism for abortion mills- or in other words, a euphemism for “Planning to Kill the Family”. They should just change their name to “Abortions R Us” and things would be just fine…. Then if someone refuses upon religious or moral grounds to enable an abortion when employed by abortionists, they could be fired because it would cause ‘undue hardship on the conduct of the business’.
Report comment to moderator
Once the govt gives anyone public monies (car dealers, AIG execs) can we legitimately say anything along the lines of “We’ll give you this but under no circumstances will you be then be allowed to use the money on X, Y or Z”??
Make it Man, I like Dr Laura’s name for PPFA: Planned Un-parenthood.
Report comment to moderator
#3 I suspect we’ll see a flurry of last minute final hours activities from Bush. Though nothing at all like all those pardons Clinton sold in exchange for presidential library donations, I’d imagine.
Report comment to moderator
Well, when Obama repeals this reasonable action, the folks that have the wan hope that Obama cares for the culture of life will see the truth. We know that Obama showed no mercy even on the issue of mercy for infants born alive during botched abortions.
Report comment to moderator
When will people learn that rights only apply to those on the left now. If you are on the right you have no rights especially when it comes to religion, abortion, speech, gays, immigration. confiscation of personal property or guns.
Get used to it.
Report comment to moderator
sawgunner post 7,
I sense that we are confounding regulations with pardons here.
What this topic appears to address is a set of last minute regulatons being promulgated by the Bush administration. And I suggest that it is a fair question to ask that if these were such good ideas, why are thye only being promulgated at the last minute?
Pardons are a second area of interest but have a different behavior than regulations. While the regulation activitiy is not speculation, it is happening right now, pardons are speculative at this point: they have yet to happen.
I will speculate that for some technical reasons, however, that the sheer number of people covered by last minute pardons issued by Bush will be extremely large and probably dwarf what we have seen previously. We will get a better idea as December and Junauary play out up to January 20th.
Report comment to moderator
Peter leavitt post 8,
I suggest that your characterization of the regulation is perhaps highly colored by your ideological position here?
It is just possible that others with different assumptions will characterize these regulations very differently?
Report comment to moderator
llama post 9,
so please show me how in the new administration you are:
1) forced to enter into gay marriage?
2) forced to have an abortion?
I am having trouble seeing where your rights are being constrained, at least within the context of the social issues which are being discussed. Can you clarify how your rights are being constrained on social issues?
Report comment to moderator
Musing post 12,
There is no such thing as “gay marriage”…That is like saying “Christian pornography”–no such thing. Marriage takes male and female. “Gay”ness takes sodomizing.–Please don’t confuse the two. Thank you.
Report comment to moderator
truthtllr post 13,
perhaps you are unaware of the law in Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Gay marriages are every bit as much a marriage as any other marriage in these states.
What needs to be remembered is that marriage is a contractual arrangement controlled by the civil authorities. Religious authorities are empowered to perform marriages only at the will of the civilian authorities.
Report comment to moderator
12. When “Gay Marriage” is the norm will I be forced to go against my religious beliefs and help gay couple adopt children or cater or photograph their wedding?
Gays don’t want tolerance they want affirmation.
Report comment to moderator
kbells post 15,
why would you have to do any of these things?
What you will have to do is that if you offer services to the public you will find that there are a number of anti-discrimination laws which will be enforced.
The solution of course is simple, do not participate in these activities in ways which cause them to be governed by these anti-discrimination laws.
Report comment to moderator
15
My husband is a surgeon, and does not believe in bigotry. Should you need his life saving services, should he be allowed to refuse to render them based on his beliefs?
Report comment to moderator
Duncan post 17,
Excellent point!
Report comment to moderator
So in other words, people of faith shouldn’t do anything, even something as inane as photography, if they oppose gay marriage or abortion or other left leaning issues? Should we therefore force Jehovah’s Witnesses to salute the flag? After all, they live in this country, and that is part of being an American. Force Jews to eat pork? Why not? They chose to live in a non kosher society after all. How about force Mormons to drink coffee? With all those Starbucks around, you know that some of them MUST employ Mormons. People of faith being barred from certain professions because of their religious beliefs is no different than barring gays or blacks from certain occupations. The simple fact of the matter is, performing abortions is not crucial to being an RN, nor is photographing gay marriages crucial to being a photographer. If a situation makes someone that uncomfortable, demanding that they do it anyway to conform to YOUR beliefs, especially when there are plenty of people willing to provide such services to gays and lesbians smacks of simply trying to target people you disagree with.
Report comment to moderator
Duncan, does your surgeon husband find saving lives morally objectionable? Your argument is specious. No one is saying that people should be able to deny all services to gays and lesbians, or people who support abortions, only services which would require the person providing them to do something which would violate their conscience and moral standards. The government has no right to punish people for simply doing or not doing something that follows their conscience.
Report comment to moderator
Praise God for George W. Bush.
Report comment to moderator
Barracuda;
My point is that the refusal to provide services is inevitably a one way street. My husband would never allow someone to die under him without doing everything in his power to save that person’s life, regardless of their belief, however bigoted it may be. However, we can be denied services, have our marriage dissolved, and I’m sure that if it was possible, have our children taken away from us, all based on the beliefs of others, with complete disregard for our concience and moral standards.
Report comment to moderator
Barracudda post 19,
hmm I don’t think any one is forced to salute the flag. No one is forced to eat pork. No one is forced to drink coffee.
However, if you offer public services covered by anti-discrimination laws, then of course you must obey the antidiscrimination laws. This is a requirement for everyone.
I sense that you seem to be raising faulty analogies here.
Report comment to moderator
I have continued to challenge those who oppose gay marriage to demonstrate how the presence of gay marriage directly injures them.
So far, the only issues raised appear to have the form of “I don’t like it and don’t want to have to admit its existence”.
It should be noted that the same was said of miscegenation laws until the late 60s. History suggests that gay marriage is going down a similar path. Certainly the world has not come crashing down in Massachusetts and it is now about five years since gay marriage was allowed in Massachusetts.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe the problem is with the anti-discrimination laws.
Report comment to moderator
One must remember that conservative Christians were at the forefront of the opposition to integration and women’s rights. Only when it became socially and legally untenable did the majority of them relent and grudgingly accept women’s rights and racial equality. Still, if they had their druthers, they’d turn back the clock if they could. There is still a large longing among them for the America of the 1940’s and 50’s, when segregation was still in force. We still see their nostalgia and bitterness played out every day on here.
And make no mistake – many of them aren’t just opposed to abortion, but to all birth control. They’d make it illegal in heartbeat if they could. Many in the anti-choice movement make no bones that their ultimate goal is to make all forms of birth control illegal again.
I suspect Bush is promulgating these regulations to go out on a high-note with the conservative Christian movement. He’s attempting to create an environment where abortion is technically still legal, but impossible to obtain. You’d think he’d take a lesson from the voters of the 3 states that turned down attempts to go down the anti-choice path just a few weeks ago.
Thankfully the damage can be limited to a few months. Hopefully Obama will do the right thing and get them overturned.
Report comment to moderator
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20081119_eHarmony_settles_with_N_J__over_same-sex_matches.html
Can I sue the local mens store for sexism? Or the Children’s Place for ageism? Apparently.
Report comment to moderator
kbells post 25,
that what those supporting the Jim Crow laws said.
Report comment to moderator
kbells post 27,
why I do suggest that you should perhaps try!
Let me know how it comes out!
Report comment to moderator
28. Huh.
Report comment to moderator
kbells post 30,
those in favor of Jim Crow laws suggested that there were problems with the proposed anti-discrimination laws.
You find yourself in very interesting company.
Report comment to moderator
31. Alright then. I’ve agree on certain points with people I disagreed with on other points.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t feed the trolls, KBells.
Report comment to moderator
kbells post 32,
actually I suggest that the simplest approach here would be to provide a clear fudnamental explanation on why you feel that:
1) gay marriage iunures your directly
2) gay marriage is inappropriate
Right now I belioeve all I am seeing is an argument of the form “I don’t like gay marriage and dont want to admit it exists”. This is, to say the least, a thin argument for an anti-gay marriage position.
Do you have a more substantive argument against gay marrriage and why gay marriage would directly injure you personally?
Report comment to moderator
Outkast – 33
We have a few
Report comment to moderator
Which posters are trolls, Vicky?
Report comment to moderator
The non-trolls all know without telling, Lumpy.
Report comment to moderator
Lumpy is obviously not an evangelical pro-life voter and exists just to stir up trouble, so why bother even responding to him/her/it?
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
“hmm I don’t think any one is forced to salute the flag. No one is forced to eat pork. No one is forced to drink coffee.”
Well, yes. That’s called sarcasm. Sometimes I use it to make a point, in this case, how ridiculous it is to try and force someone to do things that go against their deepest held beliefs. The government frankly has no business demanding that people be “nondiscriminatory.” For one thing, the government cannot know what people are thinking, so people who are determined to discriminate will find a way anyway. Second, it’s an attempt at thought control-and as disdainful as we may find racism or other prejudices, it is a very dangerous slippery slope to try outlawing ways of thinking. History has proven that repeatedly. Either the culture will change or it won’t. Trying to cram change down people’s throats whether they like it or not is counterproductive and just plain tyrannical. Should we try to prevent discrimination? Sure–but laws to that effect aren’t necessary, except maybe in hiring. Would you patronize a Denny’s, as you pointed out, that refused to serve black people? Fact is, that a business that did that in this day and age would not last long unless there was a very large racist community supporting it, and it would never be able to be more than a local business-no way would a company like that be able to grow once people knew their business practices. Forcing people of faith to violate their conscience to keep their jobs is wrong, regardless of how you dress it up.
Report comment to moderator
“One must remember that conservative Christians were at the forefront of the opposition to integration and women’s rights. Only when it became socially and legally untenable did the majority of them relent and grudgingly accept women’s rights and racial equality.”
Sources? This is a very specious argument unless you back it up. Fact is, Christians have often been at the forefront of movements to fight injustice. The black church was instrumental in fighting racism (the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, anyone?)The Quaker Church was involved with fighting racism and slavery as far back as the 1600s-and made up many “conductors” on the Underground Railroad. Another group which helped fight segregation and the aftereffects is one you may have heard of: The Salvation Army (which hasn’t always just stood around at Christmas collecting funds.)Fact is, though many people calling themselves Christians have done horrible things throughout history, the church has also been a major force for good in the world-something conveniently forgotten in the here and now.
“Still, if they had their druthers, they’d turn back the clock if they could. There is still a large longing among them for the America of the 1940’s and 50’s, when segregation was still in force. We still see their nostalgia and bitterness played out every day on here.
And make no mistake – many of them aren’t just opposed to abortion, but to all birth control. They’d make it illegal in heartbeat if they could. Many in the anti-choice movement make no bones that their ultimate goal is to make all forms of birth control illegal again.”
Must be nice to be able to read other people’s minds. Wish I had that power. Seriously, how can you make such a blatantly editorial statement and try to present it as fact with a straight face?
You think Christians don’t practice birth control? Yes, there are groups who are morally opposed, but you can hardly lump us all into that category. Maybe you should remember that even conservative Christians aren’t as monolithic a group as you apparently think.
Report comment to moderator
Better late than never on President Bushes olive branch to the pro-life crowd. He gave us at least one pro-life supreme court justice as well. Could he have done more and done more sooner rather than later, of course.
Would and will the Obama administration be as respective to the pro-life crowd and slowly and cautiously bring in their left leaning policies on abortion or will they slam Americans right from the getgo with new pro-abortion legislation as a kickback to the special interest groups that helped elect Obama and the Democrats into leadership. I guess we’ll find out shortly.
Report comment to moderator
I loathe continuing this thread here, but since the topic is already out there:
If two men or two women love each other and want to be married, why are those that oppose this considered among other things full of hate and lack tolerance, yet…
if two women absolutely love one man, or two men adore one woman and in either situation all 3 desire to enter into a polygamous marriage, those that oppose this are considered reasonable and right?
Who are we to stop someone from having several spouses if they love each other.
Report comment to moderator
Baracudda post 40,
no my comment:
““hmm I don’t think any one is forced to salute the flag. No one is forced to eat pork. No one is forced to drink coffee.””
is not sarcasm. Rather it shows the fundamental failure of kbells argument.
Lets look at her examples of kosher and coffee.
No one makes a person not eat kosher. No one makes a person drink coffee. Likewise, no one is arguing that we are going to make you like gay marriage.
But when we get to the world controlled by anti-discriination law, the issue kbells raised, just because you eat klosher does not mean you can make everyone else eat kosher. Just because you do not drink coffee does not mean you can force everyone else to not drink coffe. And just because you dont personally like gay marriage, unless you can show a direct personal injury, you are not in a position to argue that gay marriage should also be controlled.
Now I have asked repeatedly for kbells and others to provide a clear example of direct injury to them as a result of gay marriage. They have not done so.
I suggest, in the context of victoria’s trolling comment, that those who defend the illegality of gay marriage without demonstrating a clear direct injury are the trolls.
It is becoming increasingly clear that they understand the failure of their argument. That they persist in their failed argument brings to mind a maxim which is perhaps appropriate here.
In any event I have been holding a dialog of this form in WMB for about two weeks. AND SO FAR NO ONE HAS PROVIDED ANY COHERENT REASON WHY THE STATE SHOULD RESTRICT GAY MARRIAGE.
WMB is one of the more insightful Christian conservative blogs. That WMB posters are unable to provide a coherent justification to restrict gay marriage I suggest is a very telling statement.
And Massachusetts and Connecticut have heard this vacuousness of anti-gay marriage argument loud and clear.
In short, the clock is ticking.
But keep defending the battlements of this lost cause. It probably keeps you from engaging in mischief which could be truly problematic.
Report comment to moderator
What is more interesting is that there is perhaps a moderately sustainable argument. This argument, however, would require:
1) going back to first principles
2) flies in the face of previous supreme court rulings (which quickly show the qeakness of the argument)
3) and make the theocratic perspective of the argument all too crystal clear
So it is understandable that, despite prodding on my part, it has not been raised.
Howerver without raising an argument of this or similar form, the personal preference weakness of the remaining argument is all too clear.
And in general (d note the in general!
) the U.S. considers it bad form to compromise individual rights based on the preferences of some.
Report comment to moderator
Baracudda post 40,
your statement here:
“The government frankly has no business demanding that people be “nondiscriminatory.””
appears to be a direct alllusion to my “Jim Crow law supporters” comment.
The courts have clearly found your apparent position illegal.
Report comment to moderator
Barracuddda post 40,
and note that in your argument:
“The government frankly has no business demanding that people be “nondiscriminatory.””
you appear to effectively prove Anlir’s observation. I suspect Anlir needs no further evidence, at least for the specific case of yourself.
Report comment to moderator
I must first thank Baracudda and kbells for their continued efforts to discuss and for their honesty.
I must say, however, that the discussion seems to have taken a turn I had not anticipated. With the apparent arguments by kbelss and Baracudda against the present anti-discirmination laws it would seem we have introduced two new and different concepts:
1) whether intentional or not, the effect of arguing to relax the anti-discrimination laws is to bring us to the social status quo of the fifties and early sixties in this country
2) a look at the recent electoral results suggests that over half the country has moved far beyond the social position of the fifities and early sixties
Is it indeed the perspective of some posters on this blog that we should move back to the social status quo of the fifties and sixties? Are you seriously suggesting that this would improve our country?
And are you so out of touch with the present state of America that you would even unintentionally suggest actions which would have that effect?
And the answers here, I suggest, provide a platform to consider exactly why the conservative movement finds itself in the state that it is presently in.
Report comment to moderator
If we can deny jobs to pro-life healthcare workers, then I suppose we can deny jobs to anti-death penalty criminal justice workers. Right?
Report comment to moderator
Musing, I didn’t give up. I had to go to bed. But if I have to choose between giving up a business I have work hard to establish or violate my conscience than I have been hurt.
Report comment to moderator
2) a look at the recent electoral results suggests that over half the country has moved far beyond the social position of the fifities and early sixties.
Then we don’t need these laws any more do we?
Report comment to moderator
amphipolis post 49,
no health care worker are not denied jobs unless they refuse to perform the job.
Report comment to moderator
kbells post 50,
this is the first time you have raised a substantive issue.
However, when you opened your business you presumably opened it in such a manner that it fit under the non-discrimination laws which have been in place since about the late 60s to early 70s.
That was a choice on your part.
You can restructure your company so it is not subject to anti-discrimination laws, but this will also have consequences.
What you can not do, and this was fought out in the 60s, is argue that the anti-discriminaton laws should not apply to you.
Report comment to moderator
kbells post 51,
actually your posts continue to suggest that the laws are as important as ever!
The majority of the country has apparenlty moved on.
A minority apparently has not.
If you look carefully laws are generally set up to ensure that we have mechanisms for dealing legally with what is usually a minority of the population.
Report comment to moderator
You can restructure your company so it is not subject to anti-discrimination laws, but this will also have consequences.
How?
Report comment to moderator
Besides the Laws were enacted to prevent people from deciding who they could serve. The E-harmony judgment seems to be saying they can now dictate what services you must offer.
Report comment to moderator
kbells post 55,
I believe the problem is at root that ou are offerring services publicly is it not?
If you offer them to the public then I believe the anti-discrimination laws apply.
If you offer them only to say referrals but do not make an open offer to the public, then I suspect you have room to maneauver.
So for example if I volunteer to take picture, the anti-discrimination laws do not apply.
If I volunteer to take pictures and I am offerred a gratuity, and pay taxes on the gratuity, then the anti-discrimination laws wold not seem to apply.
If I generalzie this so that I am not running a public photographic effort, but am soley on referrals accepting offers to take pictures (and refuse many simply because I choose to), I sense that you could avoid anti-discrimination laws.
If you publicly advertise yourself as a general photographer, I suspect that undermany conditions the anti-discrimination laws do apply.
So it seems there is a range of activities some of which seem to provide reasonable shielding from the anti-discrimination laws and some which do not.
My sense is you now need to employ a lawyer to help you structure your company so the laws do not apply.
Report comment to moderator
kbells post 56,
since eharmony provides matchmaking services and the suit seemed to be regaridng providing matchmaking services, I am unsure how you conclude that the suit dictated what services must be provided.
I do sense that it suggested that if your provide matchmaking services to the general public you must provide these services without discriminating.
Report comment to moderator
E-Harmony specialized in Heterosexual matching making. They had done a lot of research on what made a good Hetro match. This ruling forces them to expand and offer a service for which they are not currently set up for.
Report comment to moderator
Musing-I know you weren’t be sarcastic, I was being sarcastic. And I notice you snipped out one part of what I said and completely ignored the rest of my points. Once again, I reiterate: In a free society, the government has no business telling anyone what to think, no matter how “right” we may all find their position ourselves. As far as “injuries” caused by gay marriage, I think the recent actions of Prop 8 opponents across the country shows EXACTLY what the injuries would be. It’s already happening-Americans being targeted for harassment and vandalism just because of how they voted or who they gave funds to politically.
Report comment to moderator
Musing- I am not suggesting we bring back discrimination, I am simply stating that I do not believe we need antidiscrimination laws because they are ineffective and Big Brother-ish. There is a difference.
Report comment to moderator
Musing regarding 14,34, and beyond…:)
If you argue and want to provoke people to come to what you think are substantial arguments, you must first DEFINE your terms. It is preferable that you define them with their original meanings–stating so, so that all who are speaking in the discussion are comparing apples with apples.
Folk who don’t believe in “gay marriage” but continue to use the term coined by those who have perverted the use of the word gay, and the use of marriage, are taking the first step toward losing the battle of truth telling.
Gay when used as a term for male homosexuals is a complete misnomer. Gay truly means what it did when the word originated–happily excited or merry. In TRUTH homosexuals are not gay: they are in general (”denote the in general”
) angry, unthankful, and disregarding of Supreme Authority. There are many articles and proofs out there supporting this fact, but, first, if you have children, you may look at their lives to see if they are happy and light-hearted when they are angry, unthankful, and disregarding of your authority. 
Then we come to the definition of marriage. Of course, I’m quite aware of the recently passed laws of the States you mentioned. Has it not been a problem? Why do you think 30+ other States have rushed to pass laws DEFINING marriage? It matters not what definition a court of this land places on a word…if the God Who created and ordained marriage (and in the end will judge) says “it ain’t so”. There is a Higher Authority than the law of the land. I, for one am thankful for this!
Allowing one’s mind to succumb to the twisting of truth by the clever changing of terms’ definitions is a sure road to allowing the rule of the twisted (as is the case in Mass. CT, CA, etc.). Once your mind has heard and continues itself to repeat the lies once reprehensible, the truth is difficult to regain! –rather–it is trampled in the streets!
I’m sorry to have rerouted this thread as seems to have happened after my short complaint about your use of terms…
My complaint regarding your use of terms has everything to do with the contradiction of the term “gay marriage”. The act of true marriage tends toward producing life, while the act of sodomy tends toward producing disease, eventually death, and never life. –This is NOT a comparison of apples with apples.
Therefore, my point is, to simply change the term, and call sodomy “marriage”, does not change what it is or cause it to produce life; redefining it solely serves as a complete DECEPTION. Why should anyone fall for it??
Thanks for your consideration of these principles. Have a good day.
Report comment to moderator
kbells post 59,
when you assert that they were set up for heterosexual matchmaking, I suspect this is where the challenge lies.
It does not appear that eharmony was able to convincingly argue this qualification of their business.
It is like saying in the fifties that you only provided food for white people for example. Unless you can show a clear demarcation from this example which was clearly shown to be illegal, I sense you have a challenge in front of you.
Report comment to moderator
Barracudda post 61,
and I am suggesting that kbells posts show that the laws are still very much needed.
Report comment to moderator
barracudda post 60,
you are right, the government has no business telling people how they may think.
They of course can and do tell people how they will act.
Anti-discrimination laws govern how you will act.
Report comment to moderator
truthtllr post 62,
I agree that when there is a misunderstanding then one must probably make sure terms are properly defined.
Marriage is a civil contract between two people. We can define further if you like because there are many layers here. It provides a number of specific legal rights as defined by law. At this time, marriage is defined by the states. At no point in the marriage is there a requirement to produce life as you call it. It protects it if it occurs but it is clealry not required (or people married after menopause wold not be valid, infertile people could not marry etc. Clearly all these do marry).
Gay marriage is a marriage between two people of the same sex.
In Massachusetts and Connecticut, gay marriages are legal and the term appears to have a clearly defined and understood meaning.
In entering the term sodomy into the discusison, it is not clear you are clarifying any information. All sex acts between gay individuals are also legal beterween individuals of the same sex. Further sex acts, as opposed to marriage, have been found by the supreme court to be protected by a right of privacy.
Report comment to moderator
“It is like saying in the fifties that you only provided food for white people for example.”
If non-white people are willing to eat what’s already on the menu, then you should have to serve them, but they do not have the right to demand you change what you serve to please them.
Report comment to moderator
kbells post 67,
arguably fair enough, so if you are serving wedding photographs (the original complaint I believe) then you will serve them wedding photographs if they are a gay couple.
The eharmony suit appears to hinge on whether eharmony provided match making services or heterosexual match making services. It would appear that eharmony now agress that they provide match making services.
Report comment to moderator
Muser,
I’m not sure the point you are trying to make??
“Marriage is a civil contract between two people”
To figure the meaning of marriage, lets look to its origin–that would be the Garden of Eden. That would be a union commanded and blessed by God. Hmmm…
“At this time, marriage is defined by the states.”
Please tell me that you understand the importance of the definition of marriage not being subject to any State or states’ attempt at defining. “At this time” marriage means the same thing it has since the Garden of Eden: “A man leaves his parents and cleaves to his wife and the two become one flesh.” Found in Genesis–It’s not that difficult.
“At no point in the marriage is there a requirement to produce life as you call it. ”
If you’re going to refer to what I said, please quote me to help clear up your own confusion. I never “called” marriage a “requirement to produce life”, now, did I?? Whatever point you were trying to make here is useless since you did not read carefully or else deliberately took what I said out of context.
“Gay marriage is a marriage between two people of the same sex.”
You can lie to yourself (as so many others) all you want.
I will still believe and tell the truth about marriage and homosexuals and sodomites. 
“All sex acts between gay individuals are also legal between individuals of the same sex.”
Yes, Muser, it is also LEGAL to sacrifice living children in the USA as well–just ask Barak Hussein Obama. SO…because something is legal does it mean it is RIGHT?
Now it is your turn to come up with a substantial reason for acting as if the courts and corrupted legal system in this country have more authority than God, Himself.
On second thought, don’t bother. It really doesn’t matter what you or I think on it–the truth is what matters! Have a good day.
Report comment to moderator
Truthtllr post 69,
ah I now see our problem,
You seem to have theperception that marriage has a meaning outside its civil context.
an interesting argument BUT have you tried to argue this with the state legal systems?
Can a cleric marry a person without the leave of the state (it is usually automatic BUT it is still enabled by the state)?
Can a person be married without involving religious institutions?
I suggest then that marriage as a civil contract is in fact the correct definitoin and your arguments about the garden of eden (do you have evidence that this actually happened as described???) have little impact here. Besides, where was it recorded that there a marriage ceremony between Adam and Eve?
And we are back to marriage as a civil insitution.
Report comment to moderator
Truthtllr post 69,
now I believe that the Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act and the laws on murder makes it illegal to sacrifice living children in the U.S.. Any fetus who is born and is viable is considered a human being subject to the protection of the laws of the land.
It sounds as if your argument is mistaken here. Can you clarify?
Report comment to moderator
I’ll re-pose my question again since no one cared to give a response:
Why is a person who opposes gay marriage considered hateful etc for not approving of two same gender people who love each getting married yet the person who opposes a man marrying two women who both love the same man or two men who both love the same woman not considered hateful but reasonable for opposing this?
Someone above defined in a common law kind of way the definition of marriage as “always being two people” historically but in fact it has always been a man and a woman which is an even finer breakdown and more accurate description of the common law definition. But that would not serve the gay community well to break marriage down to it’s most precise historic definition. To them, 4/8ths is 2/4ths, not 1/2.
They are “forgetting” a step in the reduction process for convenience of argument, their argument.
Report comment to moderator
Chalzz post 72,
I find that in discussions it is usually simpler to stick to one topic and address that,
Society for whatever reason (and indeed there are good practical ones) has concluded that marriages are a couple. We can discuss the advantages of this structure if you like, but the simplest one is that divorce proceedings are simpler if there are only two parties.
And if society offers marriage as a civil contract between two persons, then anti-discrimination arguments lead one to the plausible conclusion that this should not have restrictions as to gender. There are some additional specious arguments that can be entered here, and they can be dealt with one by one if someone insists on contaminating the conversation.
If you are against gay marriage on objective and logical gruonds, I suggest this is not discrimination. I have been asking for objective and logical arguments against gay marriage for several weeks, and no one has provided any.
If you are against gay marriage out of an animus towards gays, then this is discrimination and some would argue hateful.
When we extend this to multiple partner marriages, the first issue is not hate, but rather practicality: how wold we make this work effectively. We know that gay marriage can be made to work effectively: it has been working in Massachusetts for five years or so. No one has yet, however, provided a plausible model for making multiple partner marriages workable in the U.S.
If you were to provide a working model for multiple partner marriages AND the model was agreed could be executed AND people still resisted it on discriminatory grounds THEN such resistance wuold indeed be discriminatory AND would then possibly be considered a hate approach by some.
So if you want resistance to multiple partner marriages to be considered hate, you have a long road in front of you: you must first show that it is practical within the context of U.S. society. Given the level of equal protection applied in the U.S., my sense is this is a very hard task.
Report comment to moderator
What is impractible about a child having several parents available to them rather than just one or the other?
What is impractible about providing some to venture out into the workplace who could never do so otherwise because now there is an additional parent home who does not desire to pursue a career but raise children?
What is impractible about additional income coming into the home?
If the people who would get involved in a polygamous relationship desire to do so, knowing full well of the situation, then who are we to stop them from marrying the one they love. That seems kind of hateful don’t you think?
I would like to know what these impracticalities are of a polygamous relationship that deem it necessary to keep this sort of thing illegal.
The impracticalities of a divorce proceeding are difficult even between two people, but that does not mean we refute marriage altogether. There needs to be more reason than that to disallow polygamy.
Report comment to moderator
Chalzz,
so lets look at your challenges.
first remember, that so long as no kmarriage is involved, and no children result, rights of privacy would seem to allow any consensual sexual arrangement one wants. So the issue is not the sexual activity, but the contractual rights, a point apparenlty missed by truthtllr.
Also remember that humans inthe U.S. are not chattel. We can not treat them as property.
So the first issue that I suspect you need to address for you to seriously pursue your proposal would seem to be how we wold contruct what is at root a muti-party contract with equal rights for all participants and perhaps more critically how we would dissolve such a contract. There are also some complex inheritance issues and you would need to protect the rights of any and all children which ensued.
The children issue becomes interesting when we consider that there could be multiple men as well as women, and I assume you will address this as well.
Then we must consider the case where a single person could be a member of multiple contracts (fully consistent with what I believe is your model). We now have itnerlocking contracts which make the process more complex. I will look forward to your thoughts on how we would manage these.
Of course you could decide not to answer any of these questions.
In which case I suggest you were being contrary when you asked the question.
Failure to answer my question would suggest that your question was not raised as an honest concern in the discussion of gay marriage but rather was raised to to derail the conversation.
Report comment to moderator
Muser,
Hello and g’day to you. I truly don’t have time to continue an argument with you. It has become rather obvious to me that “society” has become to you what God’s truth is to me–the foundation upon which you and I respectively have formed our values.
In many cases and on many principles, these two are diametrically opposed, unfortunately, so, on most things we likely will not be able to agree.
“I suggest then that marriage as a civil contract is in fact the correct definition and your arguments about the garden of eden (do you have evidence that this actually happened as described???)”
Your existence is proof that there was, indeed, a first couple that consummated their marriage….that is, unless you come from the zoo…or outer space…or bacteria…whichever belief you hold regarding the origins of human life. In fact, your existence is proof that a male and a female became one flesh…unless you were the rare product of a laboratory science experiment.
It is possible I was mistaken if the Born Alive Protection Act is at present the law of the land…I guess that point to me is moot as living child sacrifice HAS recently been legal, and likely will again become legal in this country…and the point I was making was regarding whether or not something is legal does not necessarily make it RIGHT. You never answered the question I asked regarding the issue, however. This is very telling.
Either fortunately or unfortunately I will not continue to respond here.
Thank you to Worldmag for the opportunity to express personal viewpoints here regarding important issues which we all must face.
Furthermore, I hope you have a wonderful Thanksgiving, as we have very much to be thankful for to the Most High God, Creator, Sustainer, Sovereign Lord, Redeemer, Savior and Friend of sinful men.
“Oh that men would praise the Lord for His goodness, and for His wonderful works to the children of men!” Ps.107:8,15,21,31
Report comment to moderator
By the situations you present, I assume you are resting on the premise that polygamy has been historically rejected by law makers because it creates too many complexities. While I have not studied the history of legalizing polygamy in our country, my guess would be that it has been regularly rejected on moral grounds more than reasons of impractibility. I am sure both weigh in historically, but unless I am mistaken, I think it is on moral reasoning that we have rejected polygamy.
But lets give your argument the benefit of the doubt and assume I am wrong, which does happen occasionally, and thus the rejection of legalizing polygamy has only been done so because of impracticalities.
First I would like to hear your examples of additional estate issues heirs and devisees would face in a culture that permits polygamy. Since we permit unlimited divorce and remarriage, the complexities already exist. Why are existing complexities acceptable but additional complexities not acceptable?
I don’t see how legalizing polygamy is kin to treating people like chattel. Please explain.
As far as I know, contractual agreements are permitted by individuals with as many individuals as each wants to go into partnership with. Why should that be any different for marriage contracts? And each individual can enter into as many separate contracts as they want having a foot in all sorts of doors. If avoiding impracticalities are the motive for contractual law in this country, then we missed that boat years ago.
Your comments sound wonderful on the surface, but they contain no substance. You have not made any reasonable argument as to prove that polygamy is rejected in our country over reasons of practicality as you imply. Therefore the idea of gay marriage as well cannot be argued from it’s practicalites or lack thereof. Instead, it is a moral issue and that is how we American’s decide it.
To try to bring the idea of gay marriage into any other arena but the moral arena, is bringing it into an arena where the culture does not decide on it from. And even amongst those without a religious penchant, there is a split on this because there is an innate feeling that gay marriage is just not right, thus it is a moral issue.
Report comment to moderator
Chalzz post 77,
no I am arguing that before you can enter polygamy into the discussion you ned to show that under the U.S. legal system there is a reasonable approach to implementation.
Unless it can be shown to be practially implemented, discussions about polygamy are purely hypothetical and have no practical impact.
And as such I suggest that since polygamy has not shown to be practical to implement, your arumnets on polygamy are moot and dilatory.
Report comment to moderator
Chalzz post 77,
and of course it is important to understand that in the U.S. marriage is a civil contract. As such it is purely an issue for civil law not religious law.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!